Slashdot Mirror
SCO To Show Copied Code
A number of people have written this morning in regards to the latest update in the ongoing SCO dropping Linux, with word from LinuxJournal that SCO has broadened the implications of code copying. A number of analyst groups have come out, however, saying that it's fine to keep moving ahead with Linux adoption - and there's an interesting interview with SCO's General Manager of SCOSource.
Check out this article about the GPL implications of their republishing IBM's alegedly infringing code in their own version of Linux.
I'm not Seth.
You could view this as only peripherally about the terms of the GPL and more about SCO being careless - if they'd used the BSD, Artistic, or Moz licenses the effect on any proprietary IP would be the same.
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
If anyone argues this, we lose in a bigger way. MS can then say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP".
I think that is a moot point. Whatever comes from this, open source will lose, whether SCO wins ("see, linux will lose you money") or loses ("see, your IP is at stake"). I think the second is less damaging because it's simply because of SCO's behaviour, and that can be shown.
The real sting in here is that while the code may well be GPL, the process and ideas it implements may very well, and probably are, still protected by patent laws. It's the same as with LZH compression: the algorithm is proprietary, even when there's GPL-ed code that implements it.
the pun is mightier than the sword
Continuing on a slightly more serious note, the only entity that is greatly served by slowing Linux's adoptation into the business world is, indeed, Microsoft. Are there any financial ties between Microsoft and SCO? I find it hard to believe that SCO is self-destructing just for the hell of it. I have not much trouble imagining Microsoft going through the ol' FUD routine.
Well, karma whoring becomes easy when you can just copy someone else's
;-)
funny post from an earlier discussion!
Hopefully, some other moderators will correct this
)9TSS
I think you may be mistaken for taking IBM's lack of vocal response to SCO as "ambivalence". SCO is storming around, yelling and screaming about how Linux and IBM have horribly wronged them. IBM is more professional: they won't posture, but they'll destroy them in the actual fight.
Any time you find yourself in a battle, the more you posture, the more you undermine your position by exposing your weaknesses through your bravado. It is better to approach a battle quietly, and then destroy your opponent completely. IBM knows this.
Life is short: void the warranty.
pe1rxq wrote:
The problem is that the owner of this ip (most unix patents will probably be outdated anyhow) has been distributing it under the gpl, and thus giving up al rights to enforce their patents. The LZH case was different, the owner of the ip never gave permission to use it in gpl programs, and thus the person who first distributed it under the gpl (not those persons who distributed it further) would be liable.
This isn't a Patent case, SCO is suing on Copyright Infringement and Trade Secret grounds. The rules are completely different.
Distributing under the GPL does not touch their copyrights over their own code. SCO still has copyright on any code they wrote that they didn't assign copyright to anyone else (eg. their extensions to Unix System V). They also still have copyright on any code that had copyright assigned to them that they didn't assign to anyone else (eg. the Xenix and Unix System V codebases). These copyrights aren't going anywhere for a while, but I seriously doubt that they have the relationship to the Linux code that SCO claims.
My understanding of Trade Secret law, on the other hand, tells me that distributing under the GPL completely destroys any Trade Secret case they may have. In order to claim that something is a Trade Secret, you need to maintain dilligence in keeping other people from finding out your information. Distribution under anything but a NDA strikes me as incompatible with a Trade Secret. Distributing your own Trade Secrets under the GPL is likely to get a judge to laugh at you.
I am not a lawyer. The above should not be considered legal advice. Mashed potatos can be your friend
----
Open mind, insert foot.
SCO's decision to hold off this long and not even provide potential future litigants with the opportunity to remove the code from their systems and minimise the alleged damage suggests, to me, that they really don't have a case. I guess we'll find out when they eventually show the code.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
So what? Smart people understand that progress of mankind is not and cannot be property of individuals or small groups; it belongs to mankind as a whole. The entire notion of intellectual property is misplaced here. Mankind is discovering how to make computers a useful universal too and how to build an Internet out of all those computers. Linux is part of that ongoing discovery. What could it be that gives a small group of people the right to own progress?
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
We have the classic GPL/Copyright confusion going on here again.
Think of it this way: Copyright is the house. GPL is a door into the house.
By publishing copyrighted work under the GPL that means that you give people to come in and do whatever they want to the house within the boundaries of the license. You still own the original house and can build another door into it that has less abilities.
You cannot, however, close the original GPL door.
You could build an extension onto the house that doesn't use any of the originally GPL'd portions and keep access to that extension away from the GPL door, but you can't close off the original parts of the house.
Trade Secrets are even trickier. You need to protect trade secrets. If you fail to protect them and lose them then they're gone. If you do take reasonable measures to protect them and they're stolen illegally then you can prosecute. (Look at that DirecTV suit where the law clerk photocopied the documents.)
So, the argument can be made that by SCO/Caldera's act of distributing Linux they inadvertenly GPL'd any and all IP that they may have included in the work. The argument can also be made that the original person who published the work under the GPL didn't have the right to do that. The problem is that SCO is a publisher too.
Personally I think we should just get ourselves back to the easy questions like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
And will they even keep secret the names of these so-called experts? Of course I would never trust anyone who signs a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing the full truth about what they are examining. I probably would never trust those people about anything ever again. I know I would never sign such an agreement (but I don't have the political clout to be called an expert, so I'll let my 24 years of operating systems work (including source code internals), 19 years of C programming, 15 years of Unix experience, and 9 years of working on Linux, continue to do what it should be doing ... which doesn't include helping low-life underpaid executives recover their worthless stock options).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
There is a trade secred [sic] law????
As far I understood the trade secred protecty you in one way, for an undefined time. It's by keeping it a secred and how long you can keep it secret, thats all folks! (As far I have understood)
Yes. I can't speak for other countries, but here in the United States most if not all states have some form of Trade Secret law. Most of them (including Utah, where the SCO suit was filed) have one based on the UTSA, a "Unified" law so that that there is minimal confusion in what the law is when you go from one state to the other.
These laws essentially boil down to: if you have a piece of information that is important to your business, and you take reasonable measures to keep that information secret, then you get the following protections for your secret:
The problem of counting on Trade Secret law is what I described earlier, once it's no longer secret, it's no longer protected.
My theory on why SCO brought up the presence of Trade Secrets in this case is not stupidity (they have to know that they are unlikely to win a Trade Secret case here), but more because of Protection 3, above. By invoking Trade Secret law, SCO can play their cards close to their chest.
They're probably hoping to get through the lawsuit without publically disclosing which code they allege infringes on their copyrights. This would prevent Linux supporters from comparing notes and filing briefings telling the court how full of it SCO is. Keeping the particulars of the case out of the public eye can only help SCO and only hurt IBM, so I assume that IBM is going to push for the case to be as open to the public as they can get away with. Since keeping the particulars hidden can also hurt Linux (nobody can remove the alleged threat until they find out what it is), I hope IBM succeeds on this point.
I am not a lawyer. The above is not legal advice. If you have a trade secret to protect, I recommend you consult both a lawyer and an experienced security professional.
----
Open mind, insert foot.